Robert Aubin

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2015]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House, employment insurance premiums paid by employers and workers must be used exclusively to finance benefits, as defined by the Employment Insurance Act, for unemployed workers and their families and that, consequently, the government should: (a) protect workers' and employers' premiums from political interference; (b) improve program accessibility to ensure that unemployed workers and their families can access it; and (c) abandon its plan, as set out in Budget 2015, to set rates unilaterally, in order to maintain long-term balance in the fund while improving accessibility.

Mr. Speaker, we often hear members say, “I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to such and such a subject.” I rise today not because it pleases me but out of necessity. I suspect it is that necessity that has prompted so many of us to express an interest in speaking to this motion today, a motion that could only have been moved by the New Democratic Party. As we will see throughout the presentations being made today, both Liberal and Conservative governments have a dismal record on employment insurance.

I wish to announce at the outset that I will be sharing my time with the member for Dartmouth—Cole Harbour so that as many people as possible can have their say and discuss the ins and outs of this measure, with the hope that through the exchange of ideas and as a result of discussion and debate, we might have a unanimous vote, when the time comes, in favour of workers who sometimes face the unfortunate reality of being unemployed. We want employment insurance to be there to get them through those difficult times.

This motion is especially crucial considering that it directly affects thousands and thousands of people all across Quebec and Canada. No one in the House can claim that they do not know someone, whether a family member or friend, who has been affected recently by a job loss, given the current economic situation. The motion put forward by the NDP today is the beginning of meaningful reparation. It is a first step towards creating a fairer, more equitable society, one that reflects the NDP's policies and vision for future development.

I would like to read the general thrust of the motion:

That, in the opinion of the House, employment insurance premiums paid by employers and workers must be used exclusively to finance benefits, as defined by the Employment Insurance Act, for unemployed workers and their families...

That seems pretty obvious to me. We are talking about an employment insurance plan. Is the point of insurance not to voluntarily pay premiums in order to be prepared when catastrophe strikes? We hope it does not. We all readily agree to pay for car insurance, for example, but hope never to need to file a claim. The same goes for home insurance. We are prepared to pay for our entire lives to protect this colossal investment, while hoping never to need to file a claim. However, when it comes to employment insurance, the Conservative government is completely distorting the meaning of insurance. Instead of attacking unemployment, which is the main problem, the Conservatives have been attacking the unemployed ever since the 2013 reform. The Conservatives would have us believe that using employment insurance in order to work a few weeks a year and then take the rest of the year off has become a way of life for many Canadians. That is totally ridiculous. I have a statistic that says otherwise: the average duration of employment insurance benefits is less than 20 weeks. It is clear to us that people want to work all year. In the famous words of our Quebecois singer, Félix Leclerc, “The best way to kill a man is to pay him for doing nothing.” That is not the problem with employment insurance. This is not a question of identifying those who want to be paid for doing nothing.

What are we now proposing to ensure that this general objective is achieved? Point (a) of the motion proposes to “protect workers' and employers' premiums from political interference”. It is fairly clear that there has been interference over the years. Oddly enough, the employment insurance system will turn 75 in 2015. It is not unreasonable to think that the system may need to be adjusted given that the job market has really diversified in 75 years. That is not the approach taken by the Liberals and the Conservatives over the years. With each reform, reorganization or re-engineering—call it what you will—the objective was the same.

The objective was always to reduce services and benefits and to generate colossal surpluses in the employment insurance fund, which disappeared and became a line in general revenues. Here are some figures. I am not going to give many because I do not have a lot of time.

The Conservative government's last budget reported a surplus of approximately $1.4 billion. This budget obviously includes employment insurance revenues because they are now part of the consolidated revenue fund. The “employment insurance” line alone for 2015 shows $3.4 billion in accumulated surpluses. Somehow $2 billion is missing. For months and months the government has tried to tell us that this money is not used for anything else. You do not need a business school course or a degree in economics to figure out that the $2 billion has been diverted.

The Conservatives keep telling us that that $2 billion has not been used for other purposes, that it is a partial reimbursement of the $9 billion they had to invest during the economic crisis in 2008 and that they are recouping that money over the years as surpluses build up. I really want to believe that, but supposing it is the case, let us take their reasoning to its logical end.

Before the government had to inject $9 billion into the employment insurance fund to pay out a minimum amount of benefits, the fund had a $57 billion surplus. If we subtract $9 billion from $57 billion, then there should be $48 billion left somewhere. However, that money has completely disappeared and has been used by successive Liberal and Conservative governments for other purposes.

There is every reason to believe that most of the funding for the unpopular and unfair measures, such as income splitting, that the Conservatives proposed in the most recent budget is coming from the EI surplus.

Obviously, the Liberals and the Conservatives could argue that the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue. This is yet another debate that went as far as the Supreme Court because the major unions persevered and continued the fight. The ruling indicates that employment insurance contributions are now part of the general revenue fund. The NDP believes that while it may now be legal to divert that money, it is still not the right thing to do.

We need to make sure that individuals, employers and workers who contribute to employment insurance are able to get the services that they paid for, especially since, like us, these people pay their taxes so that the government has the money to provide the services it wants to provide. People are being double taxed when both their EI contributions and the taxes they pay are being used to fund government measures, many of them solely designed to win votes. We need to protect those contributions.

Only one party has introduced a very clear bill to this effect in the House. My colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour had the pleasure and honour of introducing it. I am talking about Bill C-605, which sets out very clear criteria for protecting EI contributions.

Once premiums are protected, what will happen to this tremendous economic lever? Obviously we will increase access to the program. Right now, fewer than 4 out of 10 workers who contributed to the program qualify for benefits at the worst time in their lives. If an insurance company guaranteed its customers that if they encountered a problem, a maximum of four of them would be eligible for benefits, I do not think that company would be around for long. However, that is exactly what the Conservative government is proposing, and those numbers only seem to get worse instead of better. We need to increase accessibility.

In (c) we are calling on the government to abandon its plan, as set out in budget 2015, to set rates unilaterally, in order to maintain long-term balance in the fund while improving accessibility.

I know that my time is up, so I will stop there. I still have a lot of statistics to share, but I am sure that I will have the opportunity to talk about them as we get to questions and other speeches.

[Housing, June 1st, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, the pyrrhotite problem keeps getting worse and worse.

Last Saturday, over 3,000 people took to the streets in Trois-Rivières to call on the federal government to help the families that have had to pay sometimes over $200,000 to have their foundations redone.

The municipalities and the Quebec government have answered the call, but there has been nothing but silence from the federal government, if not complete denial.

Will the government finally acknowledge that there is no excuse for its failure to act and will it ever implement an emergency plan to help the pyrrhotite victims?

[Housing, May 27th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, for over four years now, my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé and I have been leading the fight to get the federal government to provide financial help to pyrrhotite victims. I have to say, however, that every time we speak, we run up against a government that refuses to listen, claiming that these are just half-truths. Meanwhile, the other opposition parties, which are well known for their insensitivity toward victims, remain silent.

Next Saturday, the entire population will take to the streets for a big solidarity march to demonstrate, loudly and clearly, their frustration with a government that refuses to act and that remains completely insensitive to their misfortune. On behalf of the Coalition d'aide aux victimes de la pyrrhotite, I invite everyone to take to the streets and come and join us in this demonstration of solidarity.

To offer a glimmer of hope, I would remind my fellow Canadians that since the beginning of this fight, only one leader, the member for Outremont, has acknowledged that the federal government should be part of the solution. The day is not far off when the federal government will answer the call, because come October, we will form a responsive government that listens to its people, an NDP government.

[Firearms Regulations, May 26th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, with all the strength of my convictions, to oppose this motion as firmly as I can, of course, and to share my thoughts on this motion with the people of Trois-Rivières, whom I have the pleasure of representing. I am certain that a large majority of them support my position.

We are debating a very important issue, since it has a direct impact on public safety around the world and on peace in a number of countries facing instability. I am obviously referring to the illegal trafficking of firearms. I want to emphasize the words “trafficking” and “illegal”, and not “firearms”. That is often where the governing party likes to go, as though we were viscerally opposed to the fact that an individual can own a firearm. We are talking about the illegal trafficking of firearms.

I would like to remind everyone that on May 31, 2001, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution to create a protocol against the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms. At the time, the Government of Canada supported the UN initiative. Canada was proud of its decision to adopt that approach because the world was finally finding ways to co-operate in waging an effective battle against this international scourge. I would like to take 30 seconds to remind everyone of what Canada said at the time:

In Canada, we know that globalization is contributing to the ever increasing sophistication of international firearm smuggling rings. Illicit transfers of firearms are often carried out through organized criminal channels and, in turn, move into the civilian markets through these transnational networks. We agree with respect to the resulting harm it poses to the public health and safety of our citizens.

Canada views the Firearms Protocol as a seminal instrument in our collective fight against this phenomenon.

There is no denying that those years are well behind us, as is that approach to international issues, much to my chagrin. Today, the Conservative member for Prince George—Peace River moved a motion that would have the Canadian government turn its back on this UN initiative. The government keeps hammering home its messages about public safety, but this is clear proof that those messages about safety are nothing but smoke and mirrors.

I would like to talk about some of the negative consequences of the illicit trafficking of firearms. As members of the House know, the globalized world in which we live is a source of opportunity but also of threats. Although trade is one of the most positive manifestations of globalization—I could go on and on about all the benefits of globalization, but that is not the topic of debate tonight—unfortunately, criminal networks have also done well and are also internationalizing their activities. A lack of international co-operation bolsters the illicit movement of arms and strengthens international criminal groups. The primary victims of the illicit trafficking of firearms are the countries that have been devastated by years of civil war and the communities affected by urban violence. For example, the proliferation of small arms is just as big of a challenge for conflict zones as it is for peace zones. It is a real epidemic.

I would like to give some statistics to give members an idea of the magnitude of the problem. Every year in Brazil, over 30,000 people are murdered by light weapons. Every year in Colombia, the illicit trafficking of firearms results in the murder of over 20,000 people. In many countries, the rate of firearm-related death is higher than the death rates in official war zones. What is more, the Small Arms Survey estimates that 60% of small arms and light weapons in the world are owned by civilians.

The illicit trafficking of firearms, including small arms—I would like to remind members once again that we are talking about illicit manufacturing and trafficking—is constantly fuelling military conflicts.

It is true that military conflict can be caused by political, economic and social problems. However, the availability of small arms in an unstable environment only increases the probability of conflict and undermines all possibility of finding a resolution.

Of course that is one of the most obvious outcomes of the illicit trade in firearms. However, I would also like to point out some of the indirect consequences of this scourge. Instability associated with the proliferation of weapons has, in some cases, prevented humanitarian aid from reaching the people who need it.

The millions of deaths in the DRC have not all been the direct result of violence caused by light weapons. Some were caused by malnutrition and illness, which were more difficult to address because of the weapons trafficking. Insecurity related to conflict remains one of the biggest obstacles to human development.

Basically, violence caused by the presence of firearms seriously undermines reconstruction as well as investments once the conflict ends. The list of other disastrous consequences is still very long, but the illicit weapons trade is a scourge.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police is of the opinion that the United Nations protocol and the marking system it entails helps in cases where weapons are used in the commission of a crime. It also helps in detecting the trafficking, smuggling and stockpiling of firearms, and that applies directly here in Canada. We are not talking about an unknown or obscure international conflict, but events that can happen here at home.

I would like to draw the attention of the House to the current government's inaction when it comes to the illegal movement of firearms. Often the government, this government, is easily lulled to passivity by the economic benefits of the firearms trade and pressure from lobbyists.

Why does this government not want to ratify international regulations on the movement of firearms? Canada's poor performance in international relations is a whole other topic for discussion. What is more, everyone has noticed that this loss of credibility on the world stage coincides perfectly with the arrival of this government.

Once again, the Conservatives are playing petty politics while thousands of civilians are risking their lives in conflict zones. It is nothing less than outrageous for a government to engage in such cheap partisan manoeuvring instead of playing a constructive role on the world stage.

International co-operation is absolutely vital to effectively combat illicit trafficking in firearms. By refusing to ratify and enforce the firearms marking regulations, the Conservatives are once again showing their lack of consideration for the UN.

If I may, I would like to more clearly define the implications of this protocol and the type of marking it involves. The protocol includes a series of crime control measures and creates obligations to establish as criminal offences—it seems to me that this should already be music to the Conservatives' ears— the illicit manufacturing of and trafficking in firearms, their parts and components, and ammunition. It also requires a licensing system for the import, export and transit of firearms, and contains provisions regulating the marking and tracing of firearms. By refusing to ratify the protocol, the Conservatives have shown a profound lack of respect for the UN.

I get the impression that our watches are running at different speeds because I never have enough time to finish my speech.

With regard to multilateralism, the Conservatives are going steadily downhill. They are isolating Canada when it comes to the regulation of the gun trade given that over 30 countries have already ratified the protocol in question. The European Union, India, Brazil, South Africa, Greece and Mexico have all signed and ratified this treaty. Where are we?

Once again, the answer is that the Government of Canada is absent, but what is even worse is that we are going to once again receive a lower ranking because of the Conservatives' categorical refusal to ratify this agreement.

A Conservative member even suggested that we simply withdraw from the UN. I thought he was joking but after seeing that Canada was the only country to withdraw from the Kyoto protocol, I think that, unfortunately, we have to take the Conservatives seriously.

[Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her question.

Bill C-42 is an excellent example of the kind of collegiality that no longer exists, as are pretty much all of the other bills the Conservative government has introduced.

As I was saying earlier, the opposition parties do not control the legislative agenda. Nevertheless, it is up to all members of the House, when meeting in committee for a clause-by-clause study of a bill, to propose the best possible amendments to improve the bill.

Even though the Conservative members themselves have acknowledged that the bill is not perfect, they refuse to accept any amendment from any party other than the Conservative Party, as though it were omniscient. That is just amazing. If that is not an outright repudiation of our democratic tools, I do not know what it is.

[Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague just said is absolutely right. I was not here in the previous Parliament. I will therefore let him analyze any debates that occurred in the House when I was not here as he sees fit.

However, from what I have seen since I have been here and since we began talking about the transport, possession, purchase and classification of firearms, the New Democratic Party has always been very clear. We are not completely opposed to the idea of people owning weapons for hunting or recreation. We just want to make sure that there are mechanisms in place to ensure that public safety is the priority. We are talking about firearms after all. There is an imminent risk associated with them, and that is what we have always said.

If my colleague wants to know whether the NDP will bring back the Liberals' costly gun registry, I think that the party has been clear about its position, which has been reiterated by our party leader, the member for Outremont.

However, the objective is obviously to make public safety the top priority at all times.

[Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Alfred-Pellan, since once again, Bill C-42 has all the characteristics of most of the Conservatives' bills. One of those characteristics is that it is subject to a time allocation motion, which was moved as quickly as possible after the bill was introduced, thereby depriving many members of their right to speak in the House and especially of the right to make the voices of their constituents heard. In order to allow as many people as possible to participate in this debate, I will be sharing my time with the member for Alfred-Pellan.

Some things that characterize this government are the many in camera meetings and the rush jobs that are done in committee, and this also seems to be the case with Bill C-42. Something that seems odd to me and that I am having trouble understanding is that the previous speaker, to whom I asked a question, said right away in his answer that the bill was not perfect. Perfection may be difficult if not impossible to achieve, but that makes it even more difficult to understand another characteristic of how this government does things, and that is the fact that the government does not accept any amendments. If the government already knows that its bill is not perfect and that the role of every opposition member is to try to improve the bill, since we are not in charge of the legislative agenda, then it is strange that the government hardly ever accepts any of the amendments proposed for any of its bills.

Bill C-42, introduced by the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness, is sadly reminiscent of some of this government's signature approaches. I want to mention a few others, which have unfortunately become classics. These include systematically using wedge politics, for example, by dividing rural and urban Canadians on sensitive issues such as firearms, as though these two groups should be at odds with each other, which is not the case. Another classic—and I am making an assumption here, but I want to mention it anyway because it seems increasingly obvious—is attempting to use public safety issues to camouflage their lack of economic vision or, at the very least, their poor economic performance in spite of a vision that we could debate at length. Obviously, the third classic is seeking to satisfy the interests of lobbyists at the expense of the public interest.

I would perhaps even add a fourth Conservative classic: their unquestionable ability to choose short titles for their bills. It is hard to be even more sarcastic when the short title in this case is the common sense—I would even say simplistic—firearms licensing act. I would not be surprised if the gun lobby itself named this bill.

I oppose Bill C-42, which means that I also oppose the culture of fear, the divisiveness and the Manichaeism that the Conservatives seek to implant in each of their initiatives. By trying to politicize the firearms issue at all costs, the Conservatives are completely missing the mark. The bill would give firearms owners who may have forgotten to renew their licence a six-month grace period. Very well. I agree that this can happen to anyone. I once forgot to renew my driver's licence. I paid the fees. I was not sent to prison and did not get a criminal record, but I got a fine reminding me of my duty as a citizen.

This legislative provision disregards the most basic principles of public safety. Let us not forget that this grace period will deprive police services of information on gun owners for six months. Every time an owner renews his firearms licence, the process requires evaluations to detect mental health problems. By identifying psychological issues, the process prevents risky behaviour by some firearms owners. However, the six-month grace period short-circuits the effectiveness of that preventive evaluation and could put our fellow citizens' safety at risk.

By instituting this potentially harmful measure, the Conservatives are showing their desire to satisfy a minority represented by lobbyists at the expense of the public interest. However, winning political points seems to be one of the main goals of this government's legislative agenda.

As I continued to study this bill, I nevertheless gleaned what was probably, in any event, the only good provision in Bill C-42. The bill would require each applicant to take the Canadian firearms safety course. I was just about to applaud, but I held back as I thought it was too good to be true. As I continued reading I found out that I was right.

This course would be given by an instructor designated by a provincial chief firearms officer, whose powers are constantly being eroded. Although the fact that the bill requires this course proves that all is not lost and that we can hope for signs that we are making progress with this government, we must recognize that the Conservatives' goodwill is quite limited, since this course, the only course, will not be readily available to people living in rural or remote areas. Once again, we run up against the Conservatives' old habits in the legislation, which we might call a legislative mirage rather than a legislative measure. Furthermore, Bill C-42 weakens the current legislation that governs the transport of firearms. No one should trust the Conservatives when it comes to implementing the necessary security measures for firearms.

Let us not forget that under the current provisions, firearms owners are required to have authorization to transport to carry their firearms. Bill C-42 makes it possible for owners to get the authorization to transport as soon as they receive their licence. As soon as someone receives their licence, the authorization to transport is automatically issued. There again the Conservatives are demonstrating their will to dismantle weapons transport regulations and potentially harm public safety just to please a voter base.

This measure will have its share of adverse effects because it will make it easier to transport prohibited and restricted firearms. Bill C-42 will truly cause problems for police forces in their fight against the unauthorized transport of firearms. That is why any change to the Firearms Act has to be done carefully and with the primary goal of improving public safety, a goal that was far from met according to my reading of this bill.

Since deregulating the transportation of firearms does not even remotely satisfy the gargantuan appetite of some lobbyists, the Conservatives are now wondering why they should not go even further and tackle the firearms classification standards. To carry out their agenda, the Conservatives stuck to their pattern of centralizing, another tactic that this government has used over and over from the beginning: concentrate the powers in the hands of the minister. With Bill C-42, Public Safety could have the power to set the definitions and classifications of firearms.

I cannot believe I have so little time, but I assume that is because I agreed to share my speaking time. I will wrap things up, since I am running out of time, but I still want to briefly recap the reasons why I oppose this bill. Bill C-42 embodies the Conservatives' philosophy of taking a simplistic and strictly election-minded view of problems. The main objective of this bill is to pander to a minority of firearms owners for whom safety is an afterthought.

True to form, the Conservatives are driving a wedge between Canadians in different communities. I urge all members to vote against this dangerous and ineffective bill.

[Common Sense Firearms Licensing Act, May 25th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. My problem is not with firearms as such, but rather with this bill that seems flawed, to say the least. I will get into that a little later.

Nonetheless, I read the bill carefully, hoping to find one or two things that might be interesting. I thought the mandatory firearms safety course was a good idea, but unfortunately it will be impossible to offer such a course to the broader community, in the remote and northern regions.

I would like my colleague to tell me how they plan to ensure that this common sense measure can truly apply across the country.

[Economic Action Plan 2015 Act, No. 1, May 13th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Bourassa for his presentation.

I agreed with what he said in the first few seconds of his speech when he characterized the government's budget as strictly an election budget. I thought to myself that we may have found a rallying point. A few seconds later, I realized that, in fact, his introduction served only to give himself a turn at electioneering, but on behalf of the Liberals this time.

I did not really hear him talk about measures that seemed especially important, that are in the budget and that would help Canadians not only get a cheque at the end of the month, but also enjoy a well-paying job and a decent living.

This can be achieved with the help of small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the engine of the Canadian economy. The NDP moved a motion to reduce the tax rate for SMEs. My Liberal colleague voted against that motion. Our proposal is found in part or in essence in the budget, but over a much broader period of time.

What is the Liberals' position on this tax cut for SMEs?

[Employment Insurance, May 11th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, 20,000 workers lost their jobs in April. Meanwhile, 1.3 million Quebeckers and Canadians are already unemployed. They contributed to the employment insurance fund every payday, but fewer than four in ten unemployed Canadians will get benefits when they need them. Why? It is because the Conservatives, like the Liberals before them, are looting the EI fund to give gifts to their friends rather than giving unemployed workers the insurance they paid for.

When will the Conservatives stop misappropriating EI contributions to write cheques for the rich?